Stephen Hadley on Dealing with Iran

Former national security adviser Stephen Hadley has a pretty long article considering the pros and cons of several possible approaches.  In Hadley's words,

The purpose of this article is not to advocate a particular course of action, but to contribute to the public debate by setting out the full range of plausible approaches to resolving the confrontation between the international community and the Iranian regime over its nuclear program -- a program that virtually the entire international community believes is a vehicle for achieving an advanced nuclear-weapons capability if not a nuclear bomb itself. Eight options are described below -- from negotiations through use of force to containment -- along with potential benefits and costs in each case. 

These should be viewed as a set of "nested" options that could lead sequentially from one to another. They should be seen not in two dimensions, with the task being to pick one of the options from among the list, but in three, as a family of options through which the policy of the United States and the international community could move over time depending on the success or failure of prior options -- and the choices made by the Iranian regime.

Aaaaaand this is when you realize that sometimes all options have their downsides and that sometimes all options are bad, though some are worse than others.  The last option - acquiescing to a nuclear Iran under the delusion of being able to "contain" it - is unthinkable. I don't care how many eggheads argue that a nuclear Iran could "make the Middle East more stable." (What have you been smoking, eggheads?)  Do you really think a nuclear Iran would be a rational actor?  The mere thought is almost enough to make you miss the "good old days" of the Cold War.  Oh, I do love the understated disadvantage of this option: "Israel might not accept this outcome."  You don't say!